urbanSTL

Nerfdude wrote:

Doug wrote: Unless of course something like the Rams moved over there to spur development.

why would they do that? the Rams aren't an Illinois team, or an East Saint Louis team.

See: Meadowlands Sports Complex

Roger Wyoming wrote:

Nerfdude wrote:Does anybody else wish these weren't focusing so much on the east side? i know that's part of the plan, but it's just not going to see nearly as much foot traffic as the main grounds.

three words: Illinois Congressional Delegation

We have a winner!

The east riverfront is so isolated that it's safe...farther east not so much.

I have a general question regarding all three proposals:
Which of these has the greatest chance of economic revitalization of the East Side?

Because right now, the area is the forgotten land, the place where people from the worst parts of Detroit would fear to tread. This is the site of more economic decline than anyone in this country should dare stomach; there's a reason Aaron McGruder wrote Birth of a Nation based here. All one needs to see is the Spivey building's crumbling to the sidewalk to see all the wrong that is there and needs to be fixed. Violent crimes, poverty, drug use, and decrepid infrastructure, let alone a forgotten or ignored school base. Why would anyone choose to live there today?

All the talk of regional balkanization? I think this is the center of it all, a destitute ghetto left to rot in Southern Illinois, where Missouri can't fund it and Springfield, IL ignores for Chicago (much like how Gary, IN is the thorn in Chicago's side, only worse). For as much as StL is seen as violent by the rest of the nation, EStL is seen as hyperviolent.

I want little more than to see a revitalization in EStL, much like Covington, KY has revitalized their side of the riverfront opposite Cincinnati. This rethink of the whole Arch Grounds, including the IL side, may be the best chance in a long, long time to build something that can help EStL rise above having more than just the Casino Queen.

I am curious which project provides the best opportunity to our neighbors to the other side of the river, not just StL proper (which is my home), but to all of us. I remember SOM stating early on that they wanted to see this area rise, and provide a design that best helps promote economic development. I don't know which one may be best for that so far, but that is a top priority for me.

Or: Of all the concepts, which one bodes the best chance for providing the now slim chance for a Chesterfield family to come out to the Arch Grounds, park on the East Side of it, be entertained, and stay over there for a lunch or dinner before driving back home?

Gone Corporate wrote:Which of these has the greatest chance of economic revitalization of the East Side?

I want little more than to see a revitalization in EStL, much like Covington, KY has revitalized their side of the riverfront opposite Cincinnati.

Honestly, I think there's very nearly zero chance for any of these to have a real impact on ESTL (I recognize I could be very wrong). The analogy to Covington isn't a good one. It would be as if Webster Groves (building stock/etc.) were on the other shore and you could see it from STL AND there were four bridges connecting to it and not all were Interstates, etc. etc. etc. Newport is a nice burg in KY as well. The issue is that there's a HUGE amount of infrastructure separating the east riverfront from ESTL - it makes I-70 look like my alley. SOM plopped some residential on the east side, but if it happens it will be modern condos isolated form ESTL. Another issue is the contamination of the east riverfront. At least one plan discusses this in detail. It's bad and it's going to take $millions to clean up - more so if people would be living there, etc.

Alex Ihnen wrote:

Gone Corporate wrote:Which of these has the greatest chance of economic revitalization of the East Side?

I want little more than to see a revitalization in EStL, much like Covington, KY has revitalized their side of the riverfront opposite Cincinnati.

Honestly, I think there's very nearly zero chance for any of these to have a real impact on ESTL (I recognize I could be very wrong). The analogy to Covington isn't a good one. It would be as if Webster Groves (building stock/etc.) were on the other shore and you could see it from STL AND there were four bridges connecting to it and not all were Interstates, etc. etc. etc. Newport is a nice burg in KY as well. The issue is that there's a HUGE amount of infrastructure separating the east riverfront from ESTL - it makes I-70 look like my alley. SOM plopped some residential on the east side, but if it happens it will be modern condos isolated form ESTL. Another issue is the contamination of the east riverfront. At least one plan discusses this in detail. It's bad and it's going to take $millions to clean up - more so if people would be living there, etc.

While the SOM community would be isolated from ESTL, they would be snuggled up against the MetroLink and pay taxes. They'd be better connected to downtown than any anything we've ever seen there. It's an important first step. Maybe the residents would be constantly walking to downtown to spend their money, or maybe they'd do some spending in Illinois. Regardless, it's TOD in an area that needs it.

Behnisch planned to push the Gateway Mall into ESTL, along with their cultural institution, that could help a little, but not as much as the SOM neighborhood plan.

Weiss/Manfredi wrote a lot about contamination and cleaning things up. MVVA wrote some similar stuff, but with much less commitment.

Every team included some aspect of soil and water clean up.

Yes. It's not far-fetched and I think it is extremely likely.

^I want Weiss/Manfredi's pedestrian bridge and SOM's MacArthur. Please let's get both.

DaronDierkes wrote:^I want Weiss/Manfredi's pedestrian bridge and SOM's MacArthur. Please let's get both.

Yes and YES. And it may be a small thing, but I really, really want to see MVVA's Cathedral Square.

So what does the winner of this competition get? The job?

Some cash and the first chance to negotiate an actual development plan.

Location change for next Thursday: http://www.cityarchrivercompetition.org ... 19-101.pdf

Moving from Arch to convention center.

Moorlander wrote:http://www.stlouiscnr.com/features/arti ... mpetition/

Solid overview here worth reading. (short and sweet) I like the point they make about connections:

"A lot of attention is given to connecting parkland on both sides of the river to St. Louis, incorporating them into the city's geography and relating them to development and redevelopment in the city, but there appears to have been little, if any, thought on how to connect the park to anything that exists in Illinois."

Quite franky, it's hard to "connect the park to anything that exists in Illinois", when nothing exists in Illinois. There is nothing over there, except a bombed out East St. Louis.

^ That's not a pretty way to put it, but it's true. Many people consider putting money in St. Louis a waste, compared to the east side of the river, the west side might as well be Park Avenue.